Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Star Wars: The Return of Peter Cushing
Collapse
X
-
"No. No no no no no no. You done got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna'. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. I think I'll scoot over here right by this winda', let this beautiful carriage rock me to sleep, and dream about how lucky I am." - Chris Mannix -
Now.... will they be able to pull it off? Probably not all that well if they try something difficult... but that's just the current state. And it is what it is. Fix it up for the Blu-Ray release.
So... then... the beat goes on. And, f they continuously "fail" to a certain degree.... there WILL be an outcry to a certain degree... and they WILL course-correct.
But, no matter how many obstacles (and related course-corrections) they find themselves with, eventually the craft will be perfected.
And that's the future of film.
All film?
Of course not.
Look at how valuable practical effects were to the marketing of the new Star Wars TFA movie (after all the "digital glory" of the prequels)... there'll always be a place for practical effects AND practical actors... but, time DOES march on... and so do moviegoers.
Hey, I'm the first one to pooh-pooh special effects gimmickry to "sell" a movie. I enjoy a good script performed by charismatic actors above all else---but, bringing Tarkin, or Brando's Jor-El, or any number of other dead actor's beloved character portrayals back to the big screen?
Now THAT'S a SFX gimmick that'll hook me.
And just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.---Heh---sounds like something Evel Kenevil would say."No. No no no no no no. You done got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna'. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. I think I'll scoot over here right by this winda', let this beautiful carriage rock me to sleep, and dream about how lucky I am." - Chris MannixComment
-
-
I'm with P.N.Gwynne on this one. Very against resurrecting dead actors via CGI. Not only do I find it disrespectful, (much like these hologram concerts) but no matter how much it LOOKS like Peter Cushing, it won't BE Peter Cushing.
We're not talking about someone playing a deceased actor in a biography...that I get. We're talking about replacing a person. No matter who does the motion capture, or the voice, it won't be Cushing's performance.
No one can predict or assume to know how he would play a scene, or deliver a line...what subtleties or quirks he might bring to the performance, etc. Plus I shudder to think of how this will open up a Pandora's box of let's bring back so-and-so for a remake, a sequel, or whatever. It's all in very poor taste, IMO.Comment
-
I don't oppose the use of CG, if no other means are available. If your character has nine arms and two heads, sure, CG is the way to go.
But if it's just a human being, I'm sure that there are plenty of actors that can deliver. Because you know it isn't Cushing, you won't be convinced by a computer simulation. To me, CG is still a "cartoon" medium. It feels less real, it looks less real, I am not convinced (yet) by any of it, to make me feel as if a person is really there. Everything you do "on set" makes it that much more real to me.
Don't get me wrong, I miss Cushing. But, as it stands now, no computer will make me feel the affection I had for the man, no computer will capture the little things that made him Peter Cushing..
.
.
"When things are at their darkest, it's a brave man that can kick back and party."Comment
-
You can look at it like "creepily" resurrecting the dead, but (just like the political thing we disagreed on moons ago), sometimes a given matter like this can be complicated-up, where the reasoning in the complications aren't necessary.... or, frankly, aren't helpful in delivering a result that the mainstream people cite with a precedence like "Oh yeah, that makes sense."
Am I saying "just agree with the mainstream"? No. Am I saying "I'm right. You're wrong." Not really at all. Sure, I currently disagree with the mindset you & PNGwynne have, but I would easily change my tune if these issues were raised on a larger scale with more dialogue.... I could indeed be convinced by hearing more similar takes to yours...
...buuuut, for now, I feel the "photography steals souls" take doesn't jive with film-making precedence, especially when I find the possibilities with digitally rendering images of characters that possess the features of dead actors so interesting."No. No no no no no no. You done got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna'. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. I think I'll scoot over here right by this winda', let this beautiful carriage rock me to sleep, and dream about how lucky I am." - Chris MannixComment
-
^^^ Kermit's essentially a cartoon character made of felt (and can be played by anyone), Cushing is a real person and they are drawing him from footage from Star Wars and his other movies, he won't be a doll with someone's hand up his backside, he will be a CGI mess created by some computer fx guy instead of the role played by a flesh and blood actor as it should be. Let the dead rest in peace and live on thru their works. I really have no desire to see new John Wayne movies as they will not capture the essence of the actor, just his face. The same will hold true here, Cushing's ability won't be recreated, just his face. Guessing Alec Guinness will be next.You must try to generate happiness within yourself. If you aren't happy in one place, chances are you won't be happy anyplace. -Ernie BanksComment
-
Does that apply to Yoda always having to be a puppet. How about Two-Face's digital FX in TDK? Is that legit when the actor was being partially animated?
These are rhetorical questions (unless you'd enjoy responding, of course)---just to illustrate the slippery slope---ummmm "slippery incline"(?) were dealing with here.
Incidentally, I'm not saying this technique won't be wonky to a certain extent early on, but, as explained earlier, we're discussing the evolution of this technique and it's accompanying morality here (not my choice of tangents---but one I enjoy discussing nevertheless).
Well, technically, I'd purpose they'd be "living on" in the celebration of the character THEY created rendered in a digital puppet that happens to look a lot like they did at the time the character was performed by them. Anything else sounds like superstitious mumbo-jumbo to me---personally. I respect many here feel that "respect for the actors and their chosen medium" translates differently---I'm just having trouble seeing the connection and don't feel there's any resurrecting or reanimation of the dead here, despite the term "animation" and it's broad meaning seeming awkward in the context of the term "re-animation."
There's no sacred burial sites being dug up here. It's just a digital rendering.
The same will hold true here, Cushing's ability won't be recreated, just his face.
Personally, I'd rather see a close rendering of Cushing than another actor play the part.
That said: No one's really tried to do this kind of challenge with a lead character that appears throughout the whole movie, a scenario where there's much more margin for error. We know, in Rogue One Tarkin ain't THAT character. So, I'm sure I'll just think it's totally awesome they didn't recast the part."No. No no no no no no. You done got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna'. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. I think I'll scoot over here right by this winda', let this beautiful carriage rock me to sleep, and dream about how lucky I am." - Chris MannixComment
Comment